Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 119 views

    People v. Salazar 102 PHIL 1184

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous
    This document is a summary of a Supreme Court case from 1958 regarding Jesus Salazar y Gabriel who was found guilty of illegally possessing a submachine gun. The Court of First Instance of Manila sentenced him to 5 years imprisonment and costs. On appeal, Salazar argued the trial judge should have recommended executive clemency since the weapon was forfeited to the government and there was no evidence he was a hardened criminal. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, with costs against the appellant, as the legal provision violated was separate from the Revised Penal Code and no evidence was presented at the hearing to explain the circumstances of the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People v. Salazar 102 PHIL 1184

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous
    119 views1 page
    This document is a summary of a Supreme Court case from 1958 regarding Jesus Salazar y Gabriel who was found guilty of illegally possessing a submachine gun. The Court of First Instance of Manila sentenced him to 5 years imprisonment and costs. On appeal, Salazar argued the trial judge should have recommended executive clemency since the weapon was forfeited to the government and there was no evidence he was a hardened criminal. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, with costs against the appellant, as the legal provision violated was separate from the Revised Penal Code and no evidence was presented at the hearing to explain the circumstances of the case.

    Original Description:

    full case

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a summary of a Supreme Court case from 1958 regarding Jesus Salazar y Gabriel who was found guilty of illegally possessing a submachine gun. The Court of First Instance of Manila sentenced him to 5 years imprisonment and costs. On appeal, Salazar argued the trial judge should have recommended executive clemency since the weapon was forfeited to the government and there was no evidence he was a hardened criminal. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, with costs against the appellant, as the legal provision violated was separate from the Revised Penal Code and no evidence was presented at the hearing to explain the circumstances of the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    119 views1 page

    People v. Salazar 102 PHIL 1184

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous
    This document is a summary of a Supreme Court case from 1958 regarding Jesus Salazar y Gabriel who was found guilty of illegally possessing a submachine gun. The Court of First Instance of Manila sentenced him to 5 years imprisonment and costs. On appeal, Salazar argued the trial judge should have recommended executive clemency since the weapon was forfeited to the government and there was no evidence he was a hardened criminal. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, with costs against the appellant, as the legal provision violated was separate from the Revised Penal Code and no evidence was presented at the hearing to explain the circumstances of the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    [No. L-7490.

    January 21, 1958]


    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellee, vs. JESUS
    SALAZAR Y GABRIEL, defendant and appellant.
    Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila finding
    appellant, guilty of illegal possession of a sub-machinegun and sentencing him to five
    years imprisonment and to pay costs. Appellant contends that the trial judge erred in
    not recommending executive clemency inasmuch as the weapon had already been
    forfeited to the Government, and no showing was made that he was a hardened
    criminal. He obviously ref to the provision of Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code, but
    such article has no application here, because it refers to penalties provided by the
    Revised Penal Code; whereas the legal provision violated by appellant is another
    piece of legislation. Besides, no questioning was made at the hearing, and no
    manifestations whatsoever were uttered either by the accused or by his counsel to
    explain the circumstances surrounding the case. Consequently no elements appear of
    record in the light of which could be appreciated the degree of malice or the injury
    caused by the offense.
    Judgment affirmed, with costs against appellant. Bengzon, J., ponente.

    You might also like